Under Law

[stinsonmarri]

On 10/19/2019 at 12:00 AM, BlessedMan said:

I dont think scripture actually says these two resurrections happen at the same time? Therefore, it would not be a "second time" at all. I guess it depends on where one is coming from on that point.

You know we are not THE ALMIGHTY ONES, there is a reason for everything THEY do! Why allow sin, why did THE FATHER let Satan take 1/3 of the angels, why didn't THEY destroy the Adams and create two new flesh beings. Why, why, why! I personally will not deal with the whys! I know what happens doubt and then rejection, and finally chaos! What I deal on is acceptance by faith, that's it! If you want the answer be saved and then asked THE FATHER! I leave the secrets that HE had not reveal alone and accept the ones HE has given and I am at peace!

Blessings!

[BlessedMan]

2 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

So do you think the Bible is contradicting itself?

Well; perhaps we do make God's Word contradict itself by the ways that we quote it?

Quoting Rev 22:14, in isolation from its intended context has historically given people a very wrong picture of Christians and their beliefs. This idea about "keeping the commandments" is often a very poorly understood proposition. But when we add some context to this "keeping" we see that "keeping" the commandments, is in fact a promise, not an obey or you die type proposition.

Certainly, God doesn't need anyone running around trying to "defend" His commandments; because they are actually promises, under certain conditions; and this is where one needs the additional context, from the Bible; and for this, I would suggest John 14:15:

Quote

Jesus said to his disciples: If you love me, you will do as I command. (John 14:15, CEV)

Ordinarily, people would use this as a "proof text," for "proving that we need to "obey;" but is that what God is really saying here?

Consider the following from (Robertsons Word Pictures Bible Commentary, for John 14:15)

Quote

If ye love me (ean agapāte me). Third-class condition “if ye keep on loving (present active subjunctive, same contract form as indicative) me.” Cf. Joh_14:23.
Ye will keep (tērēsete). Future active of tēreō, not aorist imperative tērēsate (keep) as some MSS. have. For this phrase see also Joh_8:51; Joh_14:23, Joh_14:24; Joh_15:20; 1Jn_2:5. Continued love prevents disobedience.

"You will keep" as we see here is in a "future active" context; and NOT in the aorist imperitive sense at all. What does this mean in "normal" language? It simply means that "If you love Me; you WILL BE ABLE to keep My commandments. Thats why its a prooftext/pretext to use a verse like Rev 22:14 to "prove" we MUST obey.

Its all an enabling. His commandments are promises, not threats. Rev 22:14 is simply a declaration of that love and how it manifests in the believer's life. ONLY a true Gladventist would be able to be "under the law" and to "keep" the commandments like that!

Quote

 

As the will of man cooperates with the will of God, it becomes omnipotent. Whatever is to be done at His command may be accomplished in His strength. All His biddings are enablings. {OFC 309.3}

Character is power. The silent witness of a true, unselfish, godly life carries an almost irresistible influence. By revealing in our own life the character of Christ we cooperate with Him in the work of saving souls. It is only by revealing in our life His character that we can cooperate with Him. And the wider the sphere of our influence, the more good we may do. When those who profess to serve God follow Christ’s example, practicing the principles of the law in their daily life; when every act bears witness that they love God supremely and their neighbor as themselves, then will the church have power to move the world. . . . {OFC 309.4}

 

As Christians, we will always be "under the law;" but it does not follow that we mean the law will save us; it will however, play a role in holding forth the evidence that we are saved, being saved, and will be saved.

 

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Its all an enabling. His commandments are promises, not threats. Rev 22:14 is simply a declaration of that love and how it manifests in the believer's life.

Yes! 

The Ten Commandments are a burden to carry for SadAdventists, and a promise of what HE will do in us for GladAdventists. 

Our part is to respond to Him, believing and asking for His indwelling. 

No one is trying to throw out the Commandments, or to say they are irrelevant. 

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Well; perhaps we do make God's Word contradict itself by the ways that we quote it?

I like that.   Some folks make the Word "of no effect" by the way they quote it. 

[8thdaypriest]

When Paul says we are "NOT under the law" if "led by the Spirit",  I believe he is saying we are "not under the condemnation required by the Law".  The condemnation has been abrogated (taken away). 

Doesn't mean - at all - that we are no longer governed/guided by the Ten Commandments.  Of course we are. 

Under Grace, we are enabled to keep them, AND the penalty for not keeping them is "already paid". 

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Doesn't mean - at all - that we are no longer governed/guided by the Ten Commandments.  Of course we are. 

and we NEVER will be governed by them, no matter how much or how closely we "obey." None of the commandments mean anything important, unless the believer sticks the cross in front of them. Or between them.

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (Eph 2:13)

THIS alone is why the ten commandments "lighten the earth with the glory of the Lord;" THAT alone is why Christ is THE way, THE Truth; and THE life.

"in Him was Life; and THE life was/is the Light of men." (and women and kids, and all others). THAT is exactly why Paul said: "God forbid that I should glory in anything but The Cross of Christ!" (Gal 6:14)

NOBODY would ever again argue away about creeds or no creeds if this is what they believed and lived!

[stinsonmarri]

On 10/20/2019 at 10:12 PM, BlessedMan said:

Well; perhaps we do make God's Word contradict itself by the ways that we quote it?

Quoting Rev 22:14, in isolation from its intended context has historically given people a very wrong picture of Christians and their beliefs. This idea about "keeping the commandments" is often a very poorly understood proposition. But when we add some context to this "keeping" we see that "keeping" the commandments, is in fact a promise, not an obey or you die type proposition.

Certainly, God doesn't need anyone running around trying to "defend" His commandments; because they are actually promises, under certain conditions; and this is where one needs the additional context, from the Bible; and for this, I would suggest John 14:15:

Ordinarily, people would use this as a "proof text," for "proving that we need to "obey;" but is that what God is really saying here?

Consider the following from (Robertson's Word Pictures Bible Commentary, for John 14:15)

"You will keep" as we see here is in a "future active" context; and NOT in the aorist imperative sense at all. What does this mean in "normal" language? It simply means that "If you love Me; you WILL BE ABLE to keep My commandments. Thats why its a proof text/pretext to use a verse like Rev 22:14 to "prove" we MUST obey.

Its all an enabling. His commandments are promises, not threats. Rev 22:14 is simply a declaration of that love and how it manifests in the believer's life. ONLY a true Gladventist would be able to be "under the law" and to "keep" the commandments like that!

As Christians, we will always be "under the law;" but it does not follow that we mean the law will save us; it will however, play a role in holding forth the evidence that we are saved, being saved, and will be saved.

 

Blessed Man: The Bible does not contradict itself, the KJV scribes in the Middle Ages changed and used words that cause confusion and it to appear to be contradictory. It is not! Then you also take the Greek and again this open up a whole can of worms. The earliest Greek papyrus  was found around 125 AD and it was small. The many Greek manuscripts that were found they all had errors. The mainstream Bible scholars today based the NT on Textus Receptus that is actually Latin and not Greek. I accept the Old Aramaic Bible. I know from the structure of the four Gospel, Hebrew from Paul and the other writers that the NT mention were first written in Hebrew and later in Aramaic. I also believe that Paul sent back to Jerusalem the letters he wrote to the Greek assemblies a copy was also written in Hebrew. The Hebrew people were very meticulous in their writings and preservation. This was proven by the Dead Scrolls that were found.

The mainstream Pharisees continue where Paul left off in persecuting the disciples and apostles who call themselves THE WAY, they did called themselves Christians, which made no sense. They were Hebrews and they did not speak Greek! The Greek people follow the Hebrew belief and worshiped also in the synagogue. Act 14:1; 18:4 These Pharisees also destroyed some of the Hebrew writings and the Catholic did the rest. The Greeks writings has a lot of error and the Bible Scholars know this:

The New Testament text we read in our English Bibles is based on the original Greek text. We know this text, albeit imperfectly, through a large number of ancient manuscripts. All these manuscripts are mere copies, and the great majority of them are copies of copies, yet ultimately they all derive from the originals. In the process of copying, however, scribal errors are bound to occur. There is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes. Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts; by Peter van Minnen

So, when we look at the Greek they differ in many ways from the Aramaic also the Hebrew. We should look to the Old Testament for support. Noah found grace in the eyes of YAHWEH. YAHWEH did judge the antediluvian people and the salvation was the ark. The flood was a temporary punishment it was not Eternal Fire. Noah did not come under the Law, he was obedient and grace was given to him and all who would come into the ark. We allow symantec of words to throw us all so we cannot see the bigger picture. 

The created beings after the flood again had backslide and YAHWEH first called the Canaanites, they begin to fail! The Amorites were still faithful and Abraham was called to learned of YAHWEH by them. We all have fallen short of YAHWEH'S GLORY,  but we must not confuse the sacrificial laws that pointed to HIS SON who would redeem the world. The Law that the Adams came under was due to sin, they changed and kept the Law. No longer under it by sinning they stopped, and they died, having faith that when their names are call they will receive grace! They were the first to receive grace and are seal, waiting in the grave for their SAVIOUR'S return! That's true justice and so they will wake up to received their reward for keeping all of YAHWEH'S Commandments! AlleluYAH!

Blessings!

[JoeMo]

7 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

the KJV scribes in the Middle Ages changed and used words that cause confusion and it to appear to be contradictory. It is not! Then you also take the Greek and again this open up a whole can of worms. The earliest Greek papyrus  was found around 125 AD and it was small. The many Greek manuscripts that were found they all had errors.

And you know this how?  I have never heard this opinion by anyone except conspiracy theorists and Gnostics.I personally believe that God is powerful enough to protect His Word from corruption and error.  That's not to say there are not minor grammatical or punctuation errors in some translations.  I also trust main stream translations that were made by diverse committees of theologians and language experts more than I trust the translations of single individuals or denominations.

[BlessedMan]

8 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Blessed Man: The Bible does not contradict itself, the KJV scribes in the Middle Ages changed and used words that cause confusion and it to appear to be contradictory. It is not! Then you also take the Greek and again this open up a whole can of worms. The earliest Greek papyrus  was found around 125 AD and it was small. The many Greek manuscripts that were found they all had errors. The mainstream Bible scholars today based the NT on Textus Receptus that is actually Latin and not Greek. I accept the Old Aramaic Bible. I know from the structure of the four Gospel, Hebrew from Paul and the other writers that the NT mention were first written in Hebrew and later in Aramaic. I also believe that Paul sent back to Jerusalem the letters he wrote to the Greek assemblies a copy was also written in Hebrew. The Hebrew people were very meticulous in their writings and preservation. This was proven by the Dead Scrolls that were found.

The mainstream Pharisees continue where Paul left off in persecuting the disciples and apostles who call themselves THE WAY, they did called themselves Christians, which made no sense. They were Hebrews and they did not speak Greek! The Greek people follow the Hebrew belief and worshiped also in the synagogue. Act 14:1; 18:4 These Pharisees also destroyed some of the Hebrew writings and the Catholic did the rest. The Greeks writings has a lot of error and the Bible Scholars know this:

The New Testament text we read in our English Bibles is based on the original Greek text. We know this text, albeit imperfectly, through a large number of ancient manuscripts. All these manuscripts are mere copies, and the great majority of them are copies of copies, yet ultimately they all derive from the originals. In the process of copying, however, scribal errors are bound to occur. There is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes. Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts; by Peter van Minnen

Nothing you said in this most matters a hill of beans! Not even one bean! I don't care what kind of special papers and figurings they found under what rock or in some cave. Who needs any of that?

Satan was an expert at quoting scripture; yet making it completely contradictory because He would quote it out of context, or give only half a quote.

It is also common knowledge that one does not have to be some sort of "expert" in Greek, Hebrew, or anything else to understand God's Word. That is catholic/adventist  codswallop!  We have enough trouble with even just one verse, such as

"love one another,"

So what on earth do we need all of those hundreds of verses for and all of the Hebrew and Greek if we cant even understand and live just that one verse!?

There is NO SUCH THING as an expert in Bible study! Its all based on personal experience with Jesus and His Word: (1 John 1:1-3)

We have way too many "original language"  professing to be "scholars" and  weighing down the true seekers of God and His glory:

"we know the real truth. listen to our original language loftiness and our religious promenade of piety:"

Quote

We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. (Isa 4:1)

"under the law," is not some kind of buffet religion where we just need to spout off a "better" interpretation than the next guy. Jesus asked 308 questions in just the four gospels alone and in every one of those questions He was seeking a way to give voice to everyone, no matter what their level of faith or understanding was - and Jesus especially did this with the ones that we would say NO to! And the ones that He knew would NOT agree with Him.

[JoeMo]

14 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

The many Greek manuscripts that were found they all had errors.

This is an argument used by many pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian movements like Islam , LDS, New Agers, Scottish Rite Freemasons, Rosicrucians,  and ancient alien theorists.  Some of these groups of Gnostics claim that Jesus didn't die; that He survived the cross.  He and His wife, Mary Magdalene secretly moved to France and had children, whose progeny began the European monarchies!  What's really weird is that many powerful people around the world actually believe this!

Marri, I'm not saying you are one of them.  I'm just stating my concern about people casting doubt on the veracity of those Bible translations that are generally accepted as accurate. It may cause some who may be weak in the faith to look elsewhere besides Christianity.

[BlessedMan]

17 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

So, when we look at the Greek they differ in many ways from the Aramaic also the Hebrew

To the Jews I became like a Jew. That was to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one who was under the law, even though I myself am not under the law. That was to win those under the law.
To those who don't have the law I became like one who doesn't have the law. I am not free from God's law. I am under Christ's law. Now I can win those who don't have the law. (1 Cor 9:20-21)

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, BlessedMan said:

To the Jews I became like a Jew. That was to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one who was under the law, even though I myself am not under the law. That was to win those under the law.
To those who don't have the law I became like one who doesn't have the law. I am not free from God's law. I am under Christ's law. Now I can win those who don't have the law. (1 Cor 9:20-21)

I wonder how many of us who are "under the law" could preach a sermon on this text; or live their daily lives by this text?

[stinsonmarri]

12 hours ago, JoeMo said:

And you know this how?  I have never heard this opinion by anyone except conspiracy theorists and Gnostics.I personally believe that God is powerful enough to protect His Word from corruption and error.  That's not to say there are not minor grammatical or punctuation errors in some translations.  I also trust main stream translations that were made by diverse committees of theologians and language experts more than I trust the translations of single individuals or denominations.

Jo I gave you history about the manuscripts. Let me ask you some simple questions? The disciples who follow YAHSHUA were they fishermen? Were they also common men or were they educated like Paul? The information I provided did it not state that all the Greek scripts were copies of copies had a lots of error?  I never question your school of thought. I prefer not to accept mainstream, YAHSHUA did not either! Sometimes you have to stand alone. Only eight people went in the ark, three people made it out of Sodom, the four Hebrew boys stood when every one including IsraEL bow down to the image. The Bible, not me talk, about the broad and the narrow and it tells what happen to those who chooses to follow either one.

I give my comment always with the Bible and historical documents. I will never tell you or anyone to accept what I present, it is your choice. I just give the best answer that I am able to provide that is all.

Finally, you know as a pastor the Hebrews proved they were correct from Moses on down and the Dead Sea Scrolls proved it. The disciples did not speak Greek nor did they write in Greek. Just like today people copied but no one was as meticulous as the Hebrew's writers. That's a historical fact and that is all I can say!

Peace my brother!

[stinsonmarri]

2 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

To the Jews I became like a Jew. That was to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one who was under the law, even though I myself am not under the law. That was to win those under the law.
To those who don't have the law I became like one who doesn't have the law. I am not free from God's law. I am under Christ's law. Now I can win those who don't have the law. (1 Cor 9:20-21)

If you will noticed, Paul wrote a book called Hebrews, not Jews or Judah. The Judah ideology started in the third century ad when the Pharisees took over. They all during the time of YAHSHUA consider themselves Hebrews which is their ancient father Eber's name and IsraEL after YAHWEH! Just please think about it and check out the facts it is there!

To the Law (THE FATHER) and to the Testimony (YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH), if they speak not according to this Word, there is no light! Isa 8:20 The remnant will keep not be under the Commandments of THE FATHER and have the Testimony of YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH! Rev 12:17 That is what 1 Cor 9:20-21 is stating!

Blessings!

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

To the Jews I became like a Jew. That was to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one who was under the law, even though I myself am not under the law. That was to win those under the law.
To those who don't have the law I became like one who doesn't have the law. I am not free from God's law. I am under Christ's law. Now I can win those who don't have the law. (1 Cor 9:20-21)

Three types of people:

1.  those under the law  (still trying to be justified by works of the law - animal sacrifices)

2.  those not under the law  (led by the Spirit, under Christ's law, not free from God's law)

3.  those without the law  (Gentiles - ignorant of God's law, without God)

[8thdaypriest]

Errors in manuscripts

I do believe IJohn 5:7 was intentionally edited to support the doctrine of God as a Trinity.  Also Matthew 28:19.  These were not "errors".  They were intentional edits. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rachel is correct as tp1 John 5:7.  That passage should not be used  tp support the Trinity.

As to Matthew 28:19. I do not believe that the evidence that passage is as clear as does Rachel.   

 

[BlessedMan]

39 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Three types of people:

1.  those under the law  (still trying to be justified by works of the law - animal sacrifices)

2.  those not under the law  (led by the Spirit, under Christ's law, not free from God's law)

3.  those without the law  (Gentiles - ignorant of God's law, without God)

But, in this text, Paul indicated that he was all of these, at the same time.

[BlessedMan]

14 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

The remnant will keep not be under the Commandments of THE FATHER

I don't see this anywhere in the bible

[BlessedMan]

22 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rachel is correct as tp1 John 5:7.  That passage should not be used  tp support the Trinity.

As to Matthew 28:19. I do not believe that the evidence that passage is as clear as does Rachel.   

 

without getting into specifics, because its likely a different topic, both ideas are highly debateable. However, neither of the verses concerned in this statement would indicate anything, in particular, about "under the law."

[8thdaypriest]

10 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

But, in this text, Paul indicated that he was all of these, at the same time.

I don't think Paul said that he "was" all of these.  He said he "became like" those "under" the law, and "like" those without the law. 

He regarded himself was "not under the law",  "under the law of Christ", and "not free from God's law". 

[stinsonmarri]

7 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

I don't see this anywhere in the bible

I should have said not being under the law. But here it is:

 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the Commandments of ELOHIYM, and have the Testimony of YAHSHUA. Rev 12:17

Under (prep., adv.): Old English under (prep.) "beneath, among, before, in the presence of, in subjection to, under the rule of, by means of," also, as an adverb, "beneath, below, underneath," expressing position with reference to that which is above, from Proto-Germanic *under- (source also of Old Frisian under, Dutch onder, Old High German untar, German unter, Old Norse undir, Gothic undar), from PIE *ndher- "under" (source also of Sanskrit adhah "below;" Avestan athara- "lower;" Latin infernus "lower," infra "below").

keep (v.)Middle English kēpen, from late Old English cepan (past tense cepte) "to seize, hold; seek after, desire," also "to observe or carry out in practice; look out for, regard, pay attention to," from Proto-Germanic *kopjan, which is of uncertain origin. Old English cepan was used c. 1000 to render Latin observare, so perhaps it is related to Old English capian "to look" (from Proto-Germanic *kap-), which would make the basic sense "to keep an eye on, see to it."

The senses exploded in Middle English: "to guard, defend" (12c.); "restrain (someone) from doing something" (early 13c.); "take care of, look after; protect or preserve (someone or something) from harm, damage, etc." (mid-13c.); "preserve, maintain, carry on" a shop, store, etc. (mid-14c.); "prevent from entering or leaving, force to remain or stay" (late 14c.); "preserve (something) without loss or change," also "not divulge" a secret, private information, etc., also "to last without spoiling" (late 14c.); "continue on" (a course, road, etc.), "adhere to" a course of action (late 14c.); "stay or remain" (early 15c.); "to continue" (doing something) (mid-15c.). It is used to translate both Latin conservare "preserve, keep safe" and tenere "to keep, retain." Etymology Online Dictionary

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? May that never be so How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Rom 6:1, 2  

Happy Sabbath, blessings!

[BlessedMan]

22 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

If you will noticed, Paul wrote a book called Hebrews, not Jews or Judah. The Judah ideology started in the third century ad when the Pharisees took over. They all during the time of YAHSHUA consider themselves Hebrews which is their ancient father Eber's name and IsraEL after YAHWEH! Just please think about it and check out the facts it is there!

To the Law (THE FATHER) and to the Testimony (YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH), if they speak not according to this Word, there is no light! Isa 8:20 The remnant will keep not be under the Commandments of THE FATHER and have the Testimony of YAHSHUA THE MESSIAH! Rev 12:17 That is what 1 Cor 9:20-21 is stating!

Blessings!

How could this possibly be so?

Here is what Rev 12:17 tells us:

Quote

And the dragon was enraged over the woman, and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Rev 12:17, GW).

Here is 1 Cor 9:20-21 tells us:

Quote

And to the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain the Jews. To those who are under the Law, I became as under the Law, so that I might gain those who are under the Law.
To those who are outside Law, I became as outside Law (not being outside law to God, but under the Law to Christ), so that I might gain those who are outside Law.

TWO very different things!

I believe Rachel is correct; Paul was explaining HOW he witnessed Christ to so many different faith backgrounds. He actually was NOT talking about the law in the 1 Cor passage; except to say HOW he used the varying view points of the people he was trying to reach, as a connection point. Like Jesus, Paul always tried to reach people where they were at. Being "right" wasn't always Paul's directive, nor should it be our's.

Rev 12:17 has nothing to do with that! It would seem that your use of Rev 12:17 here is like that of it being a whipping text, to whip us with.

"The Law," isnt always about something to "obey."  It is more aligned with being promises. It is how we are still "under the law" even today. (cf John 14:15)

"All His biddings are enablings..."

[stinsonmarri]

10 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

How could this possibly be so?

Here is what Rev 12:17 tells us:

Here is 1 Cor 9:20-21 tells us:

TWO very different things!

I believe Rachel is correct; Paul was explaining HOW he witnessed Christ to so many different faith backgrounds. He actually was NOT talking about the law in the 1 Cor passage; except to say HOW he used the varying view points of the people he was trying to reach, as a connection point. Like Jesus, Paul always tried to reach people where they were at. Being "right" wasn't always Paul's directive, nor should it be our's.

Rev 12:17 has nothing to do with that! It would seem that your use of Rev 12:17 here is like that of it being a whipping text, to whip us with.

"The Law," isnt always about something to "obey."  It is more aligned with being promises. It is how we are still "under the law" even today. (cf John 14:15)

"All His biddings are enablings..."

Blessed Man: First, there is a difference in the European word Jew.

The Middle English word Jew derived from Old English where the word is attested as early as 1000 in various forms, such as Iudeas, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw, Iew. The Old English name is derived from Old French. The modern French term is "juif." Development in European languages; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yah Hudah was the fourth son of IsraEL (Yisra EL) this is the correct ancient Hebrews names were pronounced and the letter J was created in the Middle Ages.

The letter “J” wasn’t invented until the 1500’s, so there was no official Jesus, John, Jacob, Jonah, Joseph, Jude, etc… in the bible. believervsnonbelievers.wordpress.com

The form of ‘J’ was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J,l) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel.It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England. The Encyclopedia Americana 

People in the Middle Ages up to the Modern time have constantly put a twist on true Biblical history. Yes, the children of IsraEL was divided into two kingdom and as Jacob prophesied in Gen 49:10 that the scepter would never be removed from YAH Huda until the MESSIAH comes the first time. This is a historical fact, but the name IsraEL was also an important factor as well. Hezekiah fulfilled and kept the true NAME of EL, THE FATHER by uniting all of those who wanted to return and be faithful and worship under one umbrella. Hezekiah was the king of YAH Huda and during the Holy Convocation Day of Unleavened Bread, he brought the faithful Israelites back together again to worship THE MOST HIGH! This was the beginning of the fulfillment and when YAHSHUA was on the earth, it was not about the kingdom of YAH Huda but the worship HIS FATHER and the people that was first called IsraEL. 2 Chronicles Chapters 30, 31; Matt 10:5-6, 23; 15:24, 31

Now, today the focus on Judah today as I stated started in the third century.

After the suppression of the revolt the vast majority of Jews were sent into exile; shortly thereafter (around 200), Judah haNasi edited together judgments and traditions into an authoritative code, the Mishnah. This marks the transformation of Pharisaic Judaism into the Rabbinic Judaism.

Although the Rabbis traced their origins to the Pharisees, Rabbinic Judaism nevertheless involved a radical repudiation of certain elements of Pharisaism—elements that were basic to Second Temple Judaism. The Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

It is truly sad but from the Greeks and the Roman who took over the kingdom of YAH Huda, they did not know the truth and just named them all  from the Greek: Ἰουδαία,  Ioudaía; 

 Latin: Iūdaea. Then the Romans saw that the people after the disciples and apostles died out had now formed the religion called Judaism that was false. This started back during the Babylonian Captivity and grew. The Pharisees had many sects but finally Satan succeeded and Judaism was born. The Roman Catholic and the Protestants only knew of Judaism and placed the false belief system in translating the Bible. Satan had gain victory THE FATHER'S NAME was changed to Jehovah and THEIR TITLE became god after the Persian khodah and the Europeans pagan god Wodan. Theos is not the word god that is not Greek name at all. The word Theos is the Title for Zeus.

The word God was used to represent Greek Theos and Latin Deus in Bible translations, first in the Gothic translation of the New Testament by Ulfilas. ... Greek "θεός " (theos) means god in English. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name of a Greek god, related to the old Indo-European god *Dyeus, from a root meaning "shine" or "sky". In Greek mythology he was the highest of the gods. After he and his siblings defeated the Titans, Zeus ruled over the earth and humankind from atop Mount Olympus. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Just want you all to know this is all over the internet from the Catholic Encyclopedia and many others. I would advise everyone to actually know what Dyeus means, you all will be shocked!)

The  false religion Judaism also eventually produced the name Jew, false name and false worship! If you do not see the problem just look at the Sabbath School lesson on Ezra and Nehemiah. When you dig for truth it not easy to change but salvation requires us to accept the truth and the facts.

Too many false informations has been hidden in the Bible through translation and many become upset and angry! Why? If it is truth obey, if it is not then don't! Choices have to be made and many lies have been told. We have taken on Greek, Latin and Persian pagan beliefs and we must let them go. But again, I am just the presenter of history and Biblical facts. It is up to each individual to check out the sources for themselves through prayer. That is all I can say!

Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

21 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

I believe Rachel is correct; Paul was explaining HOW he witnessed Christ to so many different faith backgrounds. He actually was NOT talking about the law in the 1 Cor passage; except to say HOW he used the varying view points of the people he was trying to reach, as a connection point. Like Jesus, Paul always tried to reach people where they were at. Being "right" wasn't always Paul's directive, nor should it be our's.

Rev 12:17 has nothing to do with that! It would seem that your use of Rev 12:17 here is like that of it being a whipping text, to whip us with.

"The Law," isnt always about something to "obey."  It is more aligned with being promises. It is how we are still "under the law" even today. (cf John 14:15)

"All His biddings are enablings..."

Blessed Man: Look if you want to choose that Rachel is correct, that is your choice. The Bible says to both of us:

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Pro 16:25  

I am not a prophet but a presenter everyone must make their own choice. I have made mine and you must make yours. I do not understand when I ever gave anyone a Text for whipping them?? All I know is this:

 Because that Abraham obeyed MY VOICE, and kept MY Charge, MY Commandments, MY Statutes, and MY Laws. Gen 26:5

The only thing I know is to obey HIS VOICE which throughout the Bible which meant to keep HIS Commandments. It is a Covenant which means a contract between each of us and THE FATHER. I do not see that as whipping anyone at all! I see that it is an agreement of acknowledgment that HE IS our FATHER, THE MOST HIGH! So please do not think that of me. If you want to believe Rachel that is okay with me. I am not THE JUDGE, THE FATHER IS! Just pray for me!

Blessings!